as a new member to the group, i feel compelled to inform everyone that i am not a historian, merely just another human being who has thankfully had his attention refocused to the events of 1912 thanks to the wonderful 1997 film..now with that being said,i would like to pose this question to those that are in a position to know, or even those that arent, for you to ponder.. we are given the distinct impression from the film, that from the time the iceberg was intially spotted, the subsequent order to engage the reversing engines had been given rather swiftly. we also are led to believe that the engines had at least about a full minute to run at full power before the eventual collision with the iceberg (and quite possibly longer than that, i am only going by what was apparent). given that fact, it would lead 1 to believe that it must have had SOME impact on the speed of titanic before collision wiht the berg.was this indeed the case? im asking because titanics engines were powerful, and must have managed to slow the ship somewhat. if my theory, and thats all it is, is to be taken a step further, then wouldnt it follow that the reversing engines might have saved the crew of the ship valuable time to save the people that it did? if those engines were not engaged, then the possibility exsists of a faster, more damaging, and more faster sinking. thank you and god bles all who have taken the time to read this. steve
Reversing Engines
- Thread starter steve b
- Start date
Parks Stephenson
Member
Steve,
Welcome aboard. I don't think it's been established as fact that Titanic's engines were run astern before the collision. In addition to the conflicting testimony between (primarily) Boxhall and the surviving boiler- and engine-room personnel, no one reported the intense shuddering that accompanies such a sudden reversal in engine direction.
I just came off the builder's trials for a twin-screw, steam-plant warship about the size of Titanic (844' long, 40,500 tons), where we crashed the engines back from a full ahead condition. Based on that experience and having read Titanic survivor testimony, it is my opinion that Murdoch never ordered FULL ASTERN before or during the collision. If he had, there would have been no doubt among the crew and passengers as to what was happening.
Parks
Welcome aboard. I don't think it's been established as fact that Titanic's engines were run astern before the collision. In addition to the conflicting testimony between (primarily) Boxhall and the surviving boiler- and engine-room personnel, no one reported the intense shuddering that accompanies such a sudden reversal in engine direction.
I just came off the builder's trials for a twin-screw, steam-plant warship about the size of Titanic (844' long, 40,500 tons), where we crashed the engines back from a full ahead condition. Based on that experience and having read Titanic survivor testimony, it is my opinion that Murdoch never ordered FULL ASTERN before or during the collision. If he had, there would have been no doubt among the crew and passengers as to what was happening.
Parks
Parks,
I kind of sort of disagree. I agree that the crew would have felt cavitation, however Hitchens states that he heard the engine order telegraphs in his testimony. However if the ship was moving at 21 knots and the only order given was Hard Astarboard then the ship would turn aburptly. As I am sure that you are aware in order for the rudder to work effectively you have to have a lot of water passing it. Although the rudder was small it was still large enough to make a noticeable turn to port at 21 and half knots. As stated in passenger testimony the iceberg slipped along the side of the ship at a very close proximity which given the size of the rudder and the supposed speed had the ship not reversed her engines she would have avoided and even if she hit the forward part of the bow that extra bump would have pushed her hard.
Now having said that the ship is reported to be at almost standstill during and before the inspection of Smith, Andrews, the Carpenter and Wilde. Smith also ordered all stop. But by that a time the ship was nearly DIW. Now it is also possible that Murdoch ordered full astern but it was unable to be carried out. The ship had to be slowed first so by the time she had slowed enough water was most likely pouring in.
Having been at sea some 24 years the only way that ship would not have turned running at 21 and half knots and the rudder hard over is if the order wasn't carried out, or free water moving passed the rudder was slowed basically making the rudder useless. These are only my opinions based on ready the testimony and sea going exprienced.
Regards,
Erik
I kind of sort of disagree. I agree that the crew would have felt cavitation, however Hitchens states that he heard the engine order telegraphs in his testimony. However if the ship was moving at 21 knots and the only order given was Hard Astarboard then the ship would turn aburptly. As I am sure that you are aware in order for the rudder to work effectively you have to have a lot of water passing it. Although the rudder was small it was still large enough to make a noticeable turn to port at 21 and half knots. As stated in passenger testimony the iceberg slipped along the side of the ship at a very close proximity which given the size of the rudder and the supposed speed had the ship not reversed her engines she would have avoided and even if she hit the forward part of the bow that extra bump would have pushed her hard.
Now having said that the ship is reported to be at almost standstill during and before the inspection of Smith, Andrews, the Carpenter and Wilde. Smith also ordered all stop. But by that a time the ship was nearly DIW. Now it is also possible that Murdoch ordered full astern but it was unable to be carried out. The ship had to be slowed first so by the time she had slowed enough water was most likely pouring in.
Having been at sea some 24 years the only way that ship would not have turned running at 21 and half knots and the rudder hard over is if the order wasn't carried out, or free water moving passed the rudder was slowed basically making the rudder useless. These are only my opinions based on ready the testimony and sea going exprienced.
Regards,
Erik
Parks Stephenson
Member
Erik,
I think you might have misunderstood me. All I'm saying is that I don't believe Murdoch rang FULL ASTERN just prior to or during the collision. In fact, I believe (based on boiler- and engine-room testimony) that he rang STOP on both engines. Titanic would still have had enough momentum through the water to maintain rudder effectiveness during the porting maneuver.
Hitchens heard the telegraphs ring, but he was in the wheelhouse with the blinds raised. He couldn't see the engine order, and said so on the stand (BOT Enquiry 988-1003). It was Boxhall who has given us the FULL ASTERN myth.
Parks
Parks
I think you might have misunderstood me. All I'm saying is that I don't believe Murdoch rang FULL ASTERN just prior to or during the collision. In fact, I believe (based on boiler- and engine-room testimony) that he rang STOP on both engines. Titanic would still have had enough momentum through the water to maintain rudder effectiveness during the porting maneuver.
Hitchens heard the telegraphs ring, but he was in the wheelhouse with the blinds raised. He couldn't see the engine order, and said so on the stand (BOT Enquiry 988-1003). It was Boxhall who has given us the FULL ASTERN myth.
Parks
Parks
I fully agree that Hitchens as per his testimony only "heard the ring of the enigne order telegraphs..". The helm order was really ineffective seeing as the ship didn't really make all that big of a turn to port. So I think the speed change was the fatal factor. Forward momentum with out the add of free water pushing past the rudder means nothing in regards to rudder accuracy especially with a rudder that small. If it had been effective then the ship wouldn't have hit. These are just a few things I think you may be right the more I think on it but you would think that you would rather try to avoid hitting it by trying to reverse his engines rather then just order a helm change and stop the engines. On a logical sense it doesn't make much sense. Why would you stop your engines in the as you ordered a turn. I guess this is all a mute point since she lays at the bottom.
Erik
Erik
Parks Stephenson
Member
Erik,
"Moot point?" Erik, that's not a good thing to say to a crowd of Titanic enthusiasts! You would take away the very reason for our existence!!
You're a ship's master. What happens if you put the rudder hard over to port and back your engines (assuming you have enough time for the screws to bite into the water)? Are you going to avoid an obstacle off your starboard bow?
Parks
"Moot point?" Erik, that's not a good thing to say to a crowd of Titanic enthusiasts! You would take away the very reason for our existence!!
You're a ship's master. What happens if you put the rudder hard over to port and back your engines (assuming you have enough time for the screws to bite into the water)? Are you going to avoid an obstacle off your starboard bow?
Parks
Dean Manning
Guest
ok, I have a question, which may be irrelevant here. But I'll ask anyway. How much do you guys think the friction from the collision with the iceberg hindered the ship to continue turning as she was "bouncing" against the burg?
Thanks.
-Dean
Thanks.
-Dean
David G. Brown
RIP
Here are the conclusions that I came to as presented in my book (chapters "Cool Hand Murdoch" and "A Narrow Shave"):
Murdoch "ported around" the iceberg. He first turned the bow away to the left. Then, he swung the bow back to the right in order to clear the stern. He ordered "all stop" on both the main and emergency telegraphs. In response to stopping the engines the boiler rooms were told to close the dampers. In fact, Murdoch's maneuver was quite effective in avoiding the portion of the iceberg above the water. Also, because it required turning both directions, the impact took place more than a minute after the final warning from Lookout Fleet, not 35 seconds later as is generally reported. Titanic's bottom struck on an underwater ice shelf with primary impact in the way of the spiral staircase, which suffered the only direct internal damage from the ice. Friction from scraping on the shelf helped rotate the stern away from the berg and the ship pulled itself free as boiler room #6 was crossing. Titanic coasted to a stop, still curving to the right (to the north).
Not everyone agrees with my hypothesis, but I have not found any other scenario that allows driving 50-odd thousand tons of steel against several million tons of ice without tossing people out of bed.
-- David G. Brown
Murdoch "ported around" the iceberg. He first turned the bow away to the left. Then, he swung the bow back to the right in order to clear the stern. He ordered "all stop" on both the main and emergency telegraphs. In response to stopping the engines the boiler rooms were told to close the dampers. In fact, Murdoch's maneuver was quite effective in avoiding the portion of the iceberg above the water. Also, because it required turning both directions, the impact took place more than a minute after the final warning from Lookout Fleet, not 35 seconds later as is generally reported. Titanic's bottom struck on an underwater ice shelf with primary impact in the way of the spiral staircase, which suffered the only direct internal damage from the ice. Friction from scraping on the shelf helped rotate the stern away from the berg and the ship pulled itself free as boiler room #6 was crossing. Titanic coasted to a stop, still curving to the right (to the north).
Not everyone agrees with my hypothesis, but I have not found any other scenario that allows driving 50-odd thousand tons of steel against several million tons of ice without tossing people out of bed.
-- David G. Brown
Michael F. Koch
Member
David,
I just finished reading the "A Narrow Shave" Chapter and I would have to say your version of Murdoch's Port-Around does appear to be very sound and you have pretty much convinced me that's what happened! It makes too much sense. Your book has got me totally captivated! I can't put it down!
Michael.
I just finished reading the "A Narrow Shave" Chapter and I would have to say your version of Murdoch's Port-Around does appear to be very sound and you have pretty much convinced me that's what happened! It makes too much sense. Your book has got me totally captivated! I can't put it down!
Michael.
to mr brown and all others that have commented on this subject, you have my personal thanks for making it so fascinating and enlightening.again, i do not assumeto even possess 1/4 of the knowledge you gentleman do, and that is why it makes this all the more fascinating for me. it is a crime in retrospect that the reversing engines were not engaged, for any amount of speed to slow down the collision could have gotten more valuable time to save the lives it did. i hope that when 2012 rolls around, god willing i am here to see it, i hope the time will be taken to relfect on the marvel that was titanic, and the lives of thos people remembered, survivors and perrished..at the age of 32, my 1 wish in life would be that this very important time in hsitory is never forgotten.i guess you can say what you will about david camerons Titanic, but let me take it a bit..it is the reason i am here, discussing this issue, and it is the reason why people like me and younger raced out to libraries and such in a thirst for more information..thanks to the film, a whole new group opf people are now aware of the titanic story, people that otherwise might not have gotten properly taught in school, if at all..the great legacy is, someday 50 years down the road, on a snowy day, someone will put on this movie and share it with somebody young..and the story will be passed on to another generation..once again god bless and thank you a
Michael H. Standart
Member
Hi Steve, and I think you'll be around for 2012. In regards reversing engines, that was about the worst thing anybody could have done. Far from preventing or lessening the impact of a collision, such a manuever virtually gaurantees it as was explained in the edition of Knight's Modern Seamanship back then. The problem with such a drastic manuever is that it would ruin any manueverability that the ship had by robbing the rudder of useful waterflow for it to be effective.
IMO, the real crime was running full speed into an icefeild, though in all fairness, everybody put the pedal to the metal back then. Cracking on as it has been called. Understandable since liners were expected to meet some fairly tight schedules, but with potentially deadly consequences if something goes wrong. The Titanic learned this lesson the hard way.
I could say a lot about Camaron's flick both good and bad, but I have no problem with it's raising awareness of this event. As you have noted, such events seem to be getting short shrift in the history classes (Or what passes for history) these days.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
IMO, the real crime was running full speed into an icefeild, though in all fairness, everybody put the pedal to the metal back then. Cracking on as it has been called. Understandable since liners were expected to meet some fairly tight schedules, but with potentially deadly consequences if something goes wrong. The Titanic learned this lesson the hard way.
I could say a lot about Camaron's flick both good and bad, but I have no problem with it's raising awareness of this event. As you have noted, such events seem to be getting short shrift in the history classes (Or what passes for history) these days.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Cal Haines
Member
David wrote:
... I have not found any other scenario that allows driving 50-odd thousand tons of steel against several million tons of ice without tossing people out of bed.
Putting the rudder over to starboard tends to cause a large vessel to "crab" laterally to port before the stern begins to come around, does it not? It would require the exact opposite of what Hichens testified to, but it could explain damage to the side of the starboard bow in the absence of damage further aft.
As to people getting thrown around by the collision, are you familiar with SS Arizona's 1879 collision with an iceberg?
Cal
... I have not found any other scenario that allows driving 50-odd thousand tons of steel against several million tons of ice without tossing people out of bed.
Putting the rudder over to starboard tends to cause a large vessel to "crab" laterally to port before the stern begins to come around, does it not? It would require the exact opposite of what Hichens testified to, but it could explain damage to the side of the starboard bow in the absence of damage further aft.
As to people getting thrown around by the collision, are you familiar with SS Arizona's 1879 collision with an iceberg?
Cal
David G. Brown
RIP
Cal --
If Titanic had been turning left (starboard helm in 1912) at time of impact, the hull would have been "crabbing" as you put it. Impact would have been more side-on, which I believe would have created a much greater jostling than the actual event. Also, the stern would have continued to swing outward to the right. In my opinion, the inevitable result of this rotational movement would have been damage from the point of impact aft the length of the ship. H&W naval architect Wilding explained this in his British testimony, but apparently Lord Mersey wasn't paying attention.
The traditional description of Titanic's accident is based on the almost universal experience of driving a modern automobile. In a car, you steer the front end toward where you want to go and the back end takes care of itself. It's almost the opposite with a rudder-steered vessel. Oversimplified, you keep the stern pointed away from the destination and the bow will take care of itself. That's why Murdoch turned back toward the iceberg -- he was trying to keep Titanic's stern clear of the ice.
--David G. Brown
If Titanic had been turning left (starboard helm in 1912) at time of impact, the hull would have been "crabbing" as you put it. Impact would have been more side-on, which I believe would have created a much greater jostling than the actual event. Also, the stern would have continued to swing outward to the right. In my opinion, the inevitable result of this rotational movement would have been damage from the point of impact aft the length of the ship. H&W naval architect Wilding explained this in his British testimony, but apparently Lord Mersey wasn't paying attention.
The traditional description of Titanic's accident is based on the almost universal experience of driving a modern automobile. In a car, you steer the front end toward where you want to go and the back end takes care of itself. It's almost the opposite with a rudder-steered vessel. Oversimplified, you keep the stern pointed away from the destination and the bow will take care of itself. That's why Murdoch turned back toward the iceberg -- he was trying to keep Titanic's stern clear of the ice.
--David G. Brown
Cal Haines
Member
David,
You missed my question. What I am saying is rudder to starboard (port helm in 1912), that is, turning to starboard. The initial response would be a drift to port, as the stern begins to swing to port. For the moment ignoring the issues of why they would turn toward the iceberg, and the fact that Hichens testified that they turned first to port. If they were quite close to the iceberg when the rudder was put over, the side of the bow might graze the berg, while the drift to port and the rotation of the stern to port allowed the side of the vessel clear. I admit that it would take a rather special set of circumstances, but then so does your scenario.
Cal
You missed my question. What I am saying is rudder to starboard (port helm in 1912), that is, turning to starboard. The initial response would be a drift to port, as the stern begins to swing to port. For the moment ignoring the issues of why they would turn toward the iceberg, and the fact that Hichens testified that they turned first to port. If they were quite close to the iceberg when the rudder was put over, the side of the bow might graze the berg, while the drift to port and the rotation of the stern to port allowed the side of the vessel clear. I admit that it would take a rather special set of circumstances, but then so does your scenario.
Cal
Holly Molly,
I didn't expect so much critism. First Parks if I saw an object dead head of me at anything more then 200 yards I would have thrown the helm hard over and added as much speed. As my bridge wing passed the object I would have thrown the helm in the oppisite diretion. If I had less the 200 yards I would have kept the rudder amidships and slammed the engines in reverse. That way if I hit I will keep the damage at the bow and the by throwing all of my power back I will most likely touch the iceberg. Usually when you reverse engines and use the helm, just like backing a car you bow goes in the oppisite direction of the helm order.
The attempt to round the berg was a good one and served it's purpose by keeping damage to one location. I have used the rounding manuever when hitting a pier but stopping, reversing whatever the case may be would lead any Captain or most anyway to believe that that was the deadly cause. The fatal order whatever. So I confirmed Cals question and added some more controversy.
Erik
I didn't expect so much critism. First Parks if I saw an object dead head of me at anything more then 200 yards I would have thrown the helm hard over and added as much speed. As my bridge wing passed the object I would have thrown the helm in the oppisite diretion. If I had less the 200 yards I would have kept the rudder amidships and slammed the engines in reverse. That way if I hit I will keep the damage at the bow and the by throwing all of my power back I will most likely touch the iceberg. Usually when you reverse engines and use the helm, just like backing a car you bow goes in the oppisite direction of the helm order.
The attempt to round the berg was a good one and served it's purpose by keeping damage to one location. I have used the rounding manuever when hitting a pier but stopping, reversing whatever the case may be would lead any Captain or most anyway to believe that that was the deadly cause. The fatal order whatever. So I confirmed Cals question and added some more controversy.
Erik
Similar threads
